[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM0PR05MB4866F268D9FB654EFBD1E8E4D1870@AM0PR05MB4866.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:14:43 +0000
From: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: add checking for "vf" from do_setvfinfo()
Hi Dan,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 4:21 AM
> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>; Eli Cohen
> <eli@...lanox.com>; Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>; Jason Gunthorpe
> <jgg@...pe.ca>; linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org; kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: add checking for "vf" from do_setvfinfo()
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 06:15:13AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 9:08 AM
> > > To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > > Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>; Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.com>;
> > > Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>; Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>;
> > > linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org; kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: add checking for "vf" from
> > > do_setvfinfo()
> > >
> > > I think I'm just going to ask netdev for an opinion on this. It
> > > could be that we're just reading the code wrong...
> > >
> > > I'm getting a lot of Smatch warning about buffer underflows. The
> > > problem is that Smatch marks everything from nla_data() as unknown
> > > and untrusted user data. In do_setvfinfo() we get the "->vf" values
> > > from nla_data(). It starts as u32, but all the function pointers in
> > > net_device_ops use it as a signed integer. Most of the functions
> > > return -EINVAL if "vf" is negative but there are at least 48 which
> > > potentially use negative values as an offset into an array.
> > >
> > > To me making "vf" a u32 throughout seems like a good idea but it's
> > > an extensive patch and I'm not really able to test it at all.
> >
> > I will be try to get you patch early next week for core and in mlx5,
> > tested on mlx5 VFs, that possibly you can carry forward?
>
> Whatever happened with this?
>
I had internal few patches that Leon and Saeed reviewed, but it needs more rework at core and driver level.
I haven't had chance to finish it.
> regards,
> dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists